3 ms·

>Which tells me that pretty much every even somewhat developed nation state already has their own version. That, or they don't because target identification an

>Which tells me that pretty much every even somewhat developed nation state already has their own version. That, or they don't because target identification and having authorization to fire are not problems that will be so easily solved. We generally try to avoid friendly fire. The device you described sounds like an indiscriminate killing machine. There's a reason we gave up area-denial weapons like mines. They kill indiscriminately and create huge political problems that mean you can win a battle and lose the war.

m0zg 7y ago
Soldiers in the field do not receive "authorization" for every shot they fire. When developed to its logical final form, this could be a part of _every_ rifle, turning every soldier into an all-seeing super-marksman. And in this case there's no "indiscriminate killing machine", because soldier pulls the trigger - the weapon does not fire on its own. And that's the way it ought to be.
- Enginerrrd 7y ago
  >And in this case there's no "indiscriminate killing machine", because soldier pulls the trigger - the weapon does not fire on its own. And that's the way it ought to be. >Not even faces, _any_ part of a human. Butt sticks out from a shallow trench? Butt gets shot off. And it won't be limited to visible spectrum either, so it could largely "ignore" camo. And it could be augmented by similar AI-based person detection from a drone. These two statements don't seem to reconcile. The second one has major things wrong with every single statement there. >Soldiers in the field do not receive "authorization" for every shot they fire. You might be surprised. For one, on just how detailed the rules of engagement for a particular operation can be. For two, outside of imminent threats, there's also quite a bit of direct authorization going on. Especially for sniper teams.
  - m0zg 7y ago
    >> These two statements don't seem to reconcile. I don't see why you'd think that. Just because the scope highlights everything you can shoot doesn't mean that it will fire the weapon. We are not (yet) at the levels of accuracy where such decisions could be made by a machine, except for area denial.
DuskStar 7y ago
Well... We (the US) haven't given up on mines, and the biggest issue with them isn't their indiscriminate nature as much as the inability to turn them off once a conflict ends. Automated, engage-everything-in-area, gun-based defences would neatly eliminate the cleanup issue while not needing IFF.
- m0zg 7y ago
  They can't even be automated right now. You'd still need to supply them with ammo. Frickin' lasers, on the other hand...
  - DuskStar 7y ago
    Automated in the sense of "don't need a person standing in a tower", not in the sense of "needs no maintenance". I suppose minefields might be the latter, but even then I'd argue that minefields are less "needs no" and more "can receive no, since they'd kill the maintenance personnel". (And if you're running out of ammo, you'd need to add more mines too)
taneq 7y ago
> The device you described sounds like an indiscriminate killing machine. A gun is already an indiscriminate killing machine. Having an 'only pewpew when on target' setting doesn't change this. Now, using this tech to set up an automated sentry turret is another matter (and something I'm still flabbergasted isn't commonplace, given the number of people in any developed nation with the skills and resources to build one in their shed.)
- m0zg 7y ago
  A gun is not a "killing machine" at all. The vast majority of guns currently in rotation haven't killed anybody, indiscriminately or otherwise. Gun is a tool to increase the lethality of its owner, but you could drive nails with it and it wouldn't kill anyone on its own.
  - taneq 7y ago
    This is pure sophistry. We're not talking about some blunderbuss on a plaque over the mantlepiece. We're discussing a loaded rifle, ready to fire and aimed by a soldier at a human target. It's a machine being used to kill a human.
    - m0zg 7y ago
      Not really no. It's an inanimate object. It does not have agency. If you, the soldier, do not aim it and don't pull the trigger, it will sit there and rust into dust without killing anyone. You can't call it an "indiscriminate killing machine" any more than you can call e.g. a hammer or a kitchen knife the same.

m0zg 7y ago

Soldiers in the field do not receive "authorization" for every shot they fire. When developed to its logical final form, this could be a part of _every_ rifle, turning every soldier into an all-seeing super-marksman. And in this case there's no "indiscriminate killing machine", because soldier pulls the trigger - the weapon does not fire on its own. And that's the way it ought to be.

Enginerrrd 7y ago
>And in this case there's no "indiscriminate killing machine", because soldier pulls the trigger - the weapon does not fire on its own. And that's the way it ought to be. >Not even faces, _any_ part of a human. Butt sticks out from a shallow trench? Butt gets shot off. And it won't be limited to visible spectrum either, so it could largely "ignore" camo. And it could be augmented by similar AI-based person detection from a drone. These two statements don't seem to reconcile. The second one has major things wrong with every single statement there. >Soldiers in the field do not receive "authorization" for every shot they fire. You might be surprised. For one, on just how detailed the rules of engagement for a particular operation can be. For two, outside of imminent threats, there's also quite a bit of direct authorization going on. Especially for sniper teams.
- m0zg 7y ago
  >> These two statements don't seem to reconcile. I don't see why you'd think that. Just because the scope highlights everything you can shoot doesn't mean that it will fire the weapon. We are not (yet) at the levels of accuracy where such decisions could be made by a machine, except for area denial.

DuskStar 7y ago

Well... We (the US) haven't given up on mines, and the biggest issue with them isn't their indiscriminate nature as much as the inability to turn them off once a conflict ends. Automated, engage-everything-in-area, gun-based defences would neatly eliminate the cleanup issue while not needing IFF.

m0zg 7y ago
They can't even be automated right now. You'd still need to supply them with ammo. Frickin' lasers, on the other hand...
- DuskStar 7y ago
  Automated in the sense of "don't need a person standing in a tower", not in the sense of "needs no maintenance". I suppose minefields might be the latter, but even then I'd argue that minefields are less "needs no" and more "can receive no, since they'd kill the maintenance personnel". (And if you're running out of ammo, you'd need to add more mines too)

taneq 7y ago

> The device you described sounds like an indiscriminate killing machine. A gun is already an indiscriminate killing machine. Having an 'only pewpew when on target' setting doesn't change this. Now, using this tech to set up an automated sentry turret is another matter (and something I'm still flabbergasted isn't commonplace, given the number of people in any developed nation with the skills and resources to build one in their shed.)

m0zg 7y ago
A gun is not a "killing machine" at all. The vast majority of guns currently in rotation haven't killed anybody, indiscriminately or otherwise. Gun is a tool to increase the lethality of its owner, but you could drive nails with it and it wouldn't kill anyone on its own.
- taneq 7y ago
  This is pure sophistry. We're not talking about some blunderbuss on a plaque over the mantlepiece. We're discussing a loaded rifle, ready to fire and aimed by a soldier at a human target. It's a machine being used to kill a human.
  - m0zg 7y ago
    Not really no. It's an inanimate object. It does not have agency. If you, the soldier, do not aim it and don't pull the trigger, it will sit there and rust into dust without killing anyone. You can't call it an "indiscriminate killing machine" any more than you can call e.g. a hammer or a kitchen knife the same.